Drevaleva v. Alsup
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-05348
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Drevaleva v. Alsup, Judge Breyer dismissed the case after adopting a recommendation finding judicial immunity and denied Drevaleva’s transfer motion.
The dismissal affects Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva’s lawsuit against William H. Alsup and the other defendants. The order also denied Drevaleva’s request to transfer the case to the District of New Mexico.
What happened
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva sued the court and Judge William H. Alsup, who had previously presided over one of her cases. A magistrate judge screened her complaint and recommended dismissal because judicial immunity barred the lawsuit. Drevaleva objected to that recommendation.
Drevaleva also asked to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The court ruled that the multidistrict-litigation transfer law did not apply and that the factors governing convenience and fairness weighed against transfer. The court also said Drevaleva appeared to seek transfer after receiving the unfavorable recommendation.
Judge Charles R. Breyer adopted the recommendation in full, overruled Drevaleva’s objections, dismissed the case, and stated that judgment would be entered for the defendants. He also denied Drevaleva’s motion to transfer.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. Alsup · No. 3:21-cv-05348
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 24, 2021
Background
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva sued the court and William H. Alsup, who had previously presided over Drevaleva’s case against her former employer. The court allowed Drevaleva to proceed without paying the filing fee. Magistrate Judge Beeler then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires screening of qualifying complaints for minimum legal viability, and recommended dismissal because the lawsuit was barred by judicial immunity.
Drevaleva filed objections and additional briefing. The case was reassigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Motion to Transfer
Drevaleva separately moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1407. The court ruled that § 1407, which concerns transfers for multidistrict litigation, did not apply because such transfers must be initiated by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation or through a motion filed with that panel.
The court considered the relevant § 1404(a) factors, including the parties’ contacts with the forum, the location of relevant events and evidence, litigation costs, and witness availability. It concluded that the factors weighed against transfer. The court emphasized that Drevaleva had filed the case in the current district and appeared to seek transfer after receiving Magistrate Judge Beeler’s unfavorable recommendation.
Disposition
Judge Breyer found the report and recommendation well-reasoned, thorough, and correct. He adopted it in full, overruled Drevaleva’s objections, dismissed the case, and stated that judgment would be entered for the defendants. He also denied Drevaleva’s motion to transfer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.